UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`ZYNGA INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`IGT,
`Patent Owner
`____________________________
`U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00199
`_________________________________________________________________
`PETITIONER'S HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`March 13, 2023
`____________________________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`ZYNGA INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`IGT,
`Patent Owner
`____________________________
`U.S. Patent No. 7,168,089
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00199
`_________________________________________________________________
`PETITIONER'S HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`March 13, 2023
`____________________________________________________________________________
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`The '089 Patent
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex 1001, '089 Patent at Claim 28; Fig. 9,
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 12-13)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview of the Grounds
`
`Ground
`
`Ground 1
`
`Ground 2
`
`Basis
`
`Claims 28-29, 31-33, 47-48, 84,-86, 90-92, and
`99-100 are obvious over Goldberg and Olden
`
`Claims 49-50 are obvious over Goldberg,
`Olden, and D'Souza
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 7
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`Goldberg
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Ex 1004, Goldberg, Fig. 3
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 20)
`
`
`
`Olden
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Ex 1005, Olden, 3:40-43, 3:53-55; Fig. 1
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 21-24)
`
`
`
`The Parties' Disputes
`
`1. Would it have been obvious to combine Goldberg and Olden?
`
`2. Does the prior art teach downloading "gaming software"?
`
`3. Would it have been obvious to use applets or other web software
`in place of Goldberg's HTML?
`
`4. Does the prior art teach a "software authorization agent" that
`monitors downloads?
`
`5. Does the prior art teach the transmission of authorization
`"requests" and "messages"?
`
`6. Does the prior art teach everything dependent claims 49-50
`require?
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`
`
`1. Would it have been obvious to combine
`Goldberg and Olden?
`
`Yes.
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Argument that Goldberg's System is Already Good
`Enough Ignores the Many Benefits—and Flexibility—of Olden's System
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1005, Olden, 3:40-43, 6:45-53,
`7:64-67; 8:12-14; 9:65-10:1, 10:4-6
`(See also Paper 1, Petition at 60-61)
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Does Not Address the Majority of the Petitions
`Reasons for Combination
`
`Olden's Teachings
`
`Goldberg Improvement
`
`• Olden's system is "highly … reliable" and
`"avoid[s] a single point source of failure"
`due to its redundancy
`
`• Goldberg would
`"more
`rendered
`be
`reliable, and more immune to the effects of
`failure"
`
`• Olden's system enables a "high degree of"
`access rule "customizability"
`
`• Olden's system employs a "robust logging
`system"
`
`• Olden's system allows for cross-platform
`communication, dynamic modification of
`access rules, easy single sign on, increased
`system scalability, and improved security.
`
`• Goldberg would be
`to "better
`able
`leverage" the user information it collects to
`control and condition access to games
`
`• Goldberg would be able to better "monitor
`the system," keep track of game software
`sent
`to users, and "track and manage
`system problems and errors"
`
`• Goldberg would be able to be "more readily
`expanded," employ a "more flexible and up-
`to-date access scheme, allow for easier user
`authentication, and become more secure
`and resistant to attack"
`Paper 1, Petition at 60-63
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Improperly Requires the Bodily Combination of
`Goldberg and Olden Without Any Modification or Adaptation
`
`. . .
`
`. . .
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Paper 19, Response at 29-30
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Proposes and Responds to Only Its Own, Different
`Modifications of Goldberg Rather than Addressing the Petition's Arguments
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Petition
`
`Paper 23, Sur-reply at 5
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 61-62
`
`
`
`2. Does the prior art teach downloading
`"gaming software"?
`
`Yes, Goldberg's system transmits "gaming
`software" as claimed.
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`The '089 Patent's Claims Do Not Require that the Game Be
`Executed or Run on the "Second Gaming Device"
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`Ex 1001, '089 Patent at Claim 1,
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 7-8)
`
`
`
`The '089 Patent's Specification Confirms That There Is No Requirement
`that the Game Be Executed or Run on the "Second Gaming Device"
`
`Ex 1001, '089 Patent, 13:12-21,
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 9-10)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`The '089 Patent's Specification Confirms That There Is No Requirement
`that the Game Be Executed or Run on the "Second Gaming Device"
`
`'089 Patent
`
`LeMay
`
`Ex 1001, '089 Patent, 26:2-9,
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 10)
`
`Ex 1013, LeMay, 46:60-65,
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 10-11)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`Many of the '089 Patent's Examples of Transferred "Gaming Software"
`Have Nothing to do With the "Running" of a Game
`
`Ex 1001, '089 Patent, 25:51-54, 25:59-6:2
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 10)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Expert Dr. Wills Agreed that Goldberg Transmits
`HTML Files to Players as Games Progress
`
`Ex. 2031, Wills Dec., ¶ 106
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`
`
`The HTML Transferred by Goldberg's System Is Required for
`Gameplay
`
`Ex. 1004, Goldberg, 14:48-65, 15:39-44, 16:39-52
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 27; Paper 22, Reply at 6)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`Dr. Wills Also Agreed that the HTML Transmitted by Goldberg is
`Necessary for Gameplay
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`Ex. 1018, Wills Depo., 25:24-26:16
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 6)
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Expert David Crane Explained At Length Why HTML is
`"Software"
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 171-173
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 27)
`
`
`
`Other Evidence of Record—Ignored by Patent Owner—Confirms that
`HTML Would Be Understood to Be Software
`
`. . .
`
`Ex. 1014, 1:24-33; Ex. 1015, 7:58-61
`Ex. 1016, ¶ [0059]; Ex. 1017. 2:35-54
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 27-28; Paper 22, Reply at 13)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Expert Dr. Wills Characterized Markup Languages
`Like HTML as "Programmed" and "Software" In His Publications
`
`. . .
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`Ex. 1020, p. 2; Ex. 1021, p. 2
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 14-15)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Expert Declined to Categorically Exclude HTML
`from the Scope of the Claims
`
`Ex. 1020, 81:5-15
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 14)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Arguments Regarding Goldberg's HTML Files Are
`Inconsistent With Its District Court Positions
`
`Ex. 1019 at 5
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 17)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`3. Would it have been obvious to use applets or
`other web software in place of Goldberg's HTML?
`
`Yes, this is a simple design choice.
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`The Petition Repeatedly Argued that Other Web-Based Software Would Simply
`Substitute for (or Supplement) the HTML Files Goldberg Already Transmits
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 2
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 29
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 28
`
`. . .
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 58-59
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`Paper 1, Petition at 28-29
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Expert David Crane—Who Patent Owner Declined to Depose—
`Similarly Explained that Applets Would Substitute for Goldberg's HTML
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 182
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 29)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Patent Owner's Expert Dr. Wills Characterized Java Applets as a
`Known Enhancement to Basic HTML
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`Ex. 1021, pp. 1-2; Ex. 1018, 65:7-66:8
`(see also Paper 22, Reply at 14-15)
`
`
`
`Goldberg Transmits HTML Interfaces to Users
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`Ex. 2031, Wills Dec., ¶ 106; Ex. 1004, Goldberg, Fig. 2
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 19)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`4. Does the prior art teach a "software
`authorization agent" that monitors
`downloads?
`
`Yes.
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`"Software Authorization Agent"
`
`Paper 11, Institution Decision at 21
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Goldberg and Olden Together Teach a "Software Authorization
`Agent" that Monitors
`
`Goldberg
`
`Olden
`
`Ex 1004, Goldberg, 8:2-14,
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 19-20)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`Ex 1005, Olden, 25:43-46, 26:8-29; 29:44-50,
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 24, 30-31, 35; Paper 22, Reply at 18-19)
`32
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`5. Does the prior art teach the transmission of
`authorization "requests" and "messages"?
`
`Yes.
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Goldberg and Olden Together Teach the Transmission of the Claimed
`"Download Request" and "Authorization Message"
`Goldberg
`Olden
`
`Ex 1004, Goldberg, 14:45-58,
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 33, 40)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`Ex 1005, Olden, 23:46-54, 5:37-40, 8:22-25
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 34, 43-46)
`
`
`
`Olden Provides an Example of a Request for and Authorization to
`Access an Application
`
`Ex 1005, Olden, 9:14-34
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 44-45)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`6. Does the prior art teach everything
`dependent claims 49-50 require?
`
`Yes.
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`D'Souza's Method Enhances the Ability of Goldberg's System to Allow
`for Game Play at a User's Convenience
`
`D'Souza
`
`Goldberg
`
`Ex 1011, D'Souza, 7:1-7, 10:46-51
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 67)
`
`Ex 1004, Goldberg, 4:32-42, 4:63-66
`(see also Paper 1, Petition at 67; Ex. 1003, ¶ 187)
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Petitioner's Expert David Crane Similarly Explained the Benefits
`D'Souza's Method Would Provide to Goldberg's System
`
`. . .
`
`IPR2022-00199
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`Ex 1003, Crane Dec. ¶¶ 471-476
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby confirms that the foregoing paper was caused to be
`
`served on March 6, 2023 via email upon the following counsel of record for Patent
`
`Owner:
`
`Jeffrey W. Lesovitz (jlesovitz@bakerlaw.com)
`Leif R. Sigmond, Jr. (lsigmond@bakerlaw.com)
`Jennifer M. Kurcz (jkurcz@bakerlaw.com)
`Daniel J. Goettle (dgoettle@bakerlaw.com)
`Robert L. Hails, Jr. (rhails@bakerlaw.com)
`BAKERHOSTETLER
`
`/K. Patrick Herman/
`K. Patrick Herman, Reg. No. 75,018
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`T: 212-506-3596; F: 212-506-5151
`Email: P52PTABDocket@orrick.com
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
